© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Health and safety audit Imperial College’s methodology Julia Cotton College Safety Auditor

© Imperial College LondonPage 2 Audits Purpose, types and standards Compliance vs Management College safety audits Audit process Selection criteria College Safety Auditor’s Methodology

© Imperial College LondonPage 3 Purpose, types and standards Purpose: verify effectiveness – assure, alert and advise – detect problems early, investigate and act on non-compliance Plan, Do, Check, Act - cycle Levels – first, second and third party Many type – compliance, management, systems, benchmarking, process, product Standards – British Standards, legislation, policies, Codes of Practice, etc

© Imperial College LondonPage 4 Compliance audit vs Management audit Management (Compliance+) Focuses on results Often tied to business aims Tests effectiveness and suitability of controls Evidence is challenged Cause and effect analysis Emphasis on alerting and changing Example – audit of driving activities and controls; scoring system not appropriate Compliance Verifies existence and implementation of controls or elements of a documented system Evidence is accepted as given Emphasis on stability (assurance); Example – benchmarking audit carried out by a department; perhaps to compare with another department or with itself; system for scoring often applied

© Imperial College LondonPage 5 College Safety Audits First party –Benchmarking audits based on College SMS to be carried out within departments by DSOs (usually in pairs) –Compliance audits based on particular policies carried out by DSOs (not necessarily within own department) –Compliance audits carried out by Building Managers via Building User Group’s “Building User Checklist” Second party –Management audits (on departments, activities, high risk processes etc; verification of First Party Audits) carried out by College Safety Auditor Third party –Internal Audit as part of de Loitte review –External Audits (generally compliance audits – CHSS, Fire)

© Imperial College LondonPage 6 Audit process (based on ISO 19011) Selection of auditor Initiation – obtain management support Preparation (document review, initial visit, relevant, scope) Perform audit – interview, examine, inspect, observe Reporting, approval and release of report Monitoring - Department monitors progress on action list at each H&S Committee; I attend / receive minutes Review

© Imperial College LondonPage 7 Selection criteria for College Safety Auditor’s audits Departments Risk profile High risk department (activity, location, complexity) New safety management (baseline) Building hazard checklist Non-compliance/ accident report anomalies Activity Relevant incident reported nationally High profile prosecution High risk activity for business and health and safety Non-compliance report

© Imperial College LondonPage 8 College Health and Safety Auditor’s Methodology Initial scoping meeting with Principal of Faculty Briefing of Head of Department Collation and review of existing documentation Initial visit Audit plan submitted to Head of Department Interviews, inspections and observation visits Write up Draft Report submitted to Head of Department for comment Full Report issued to Head of Department Meeting with Head of Department to discuss and agree actions Full Report submitted to Principal of Faculty Meeting with Principal of Faculty to discuss and agree Faculty actions Full Report issued to Safety Director Executive Summary issued to Head of Human Resources, Director of Occupational Health, Director of Facilities Management, Director Risk Management Full Report presented to Departmental Health and Safety Committee and priorities/ time scale/ responsible person for Department findings agreed Executive Summary (including Management Response by Head of Dept), presented to College Health and Safety Committee and priorities/ time scale/ responsible person for College-wide findings agreed Review